About your Search

20121027
20121104
SHOW
Today 33
Book TV 22
Hannity 14
( more )
STATION
SFGTV2 132
SFGTV 130
MSNBCW 84
MSNBC 83
FOXNEWS 79
CNNW 67
CSPAN 67
CNN 64
CSPAN2 60
FBC 52
KGO (ABC) 49
WRC (NBC) 49
KNTV (NBC) 31
KTVU (FOX) 31
WUSA (CBS) 30
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 1468
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,468 (some duplicates have been removed)
to be kept confidential applies only to ethics laws, not public records access laws. >> miss herrick for her part, all be ignores campaign and government code 4.105 d. states that the ethics commiting shall investigate complaints under the section that alleged violations of local campaign finance lobbies and financial interest and government ethics laws, which commissioner hur pointed out. however, section 4.105 a, states. any person can file a complaint with the ethics commission alleging that a city officer or employee has engaged in improper activity by, again, violating campaign finance lobbying, conflicts of interest, or government ethics laws, regulations. the difference between them is that the complaints can be filed under 4.105 a. alleging many different violations of improper activities but under 4.105 d, not all of them are investigated pursuant to procedures in c3699-13. so the whole thing in my opinion is moot. . i believe that miss herrick, may have also have wrongly claimed that the california evidence code 1040, and its definition of official information, ma
raiding my legal knowledge on the basis of that is how you accurately interpret the law. but you can proceed on whatever additional subtanive additional arguments that you have. >> the sunshine ordinance is quite clear. you cannot use that balancing test, any balancing test with 1040 or 6254.7 and,.13. you can't use balancing tests, not in san francisco. >> i believe somewhere along the lines, the ethics commission in their response which the sunshine ordinance task force rejected, indicated that the ethics commission, the ethics commission staff indicated and i believe so did the city controller, that they were withholding based on 6254 f. that did not apply either ethics, our ethics commission, or to the city controller's office. 6254 f, says that records of complaints are investigations conducted by or records of intelligence information or security procedures of the office of attorney general and the department of justice. and any state or local police agency or any investigate compiled by any other state or local police agency those records can be withheld. you are saying the et
laws, regulations. the difference between them is that the complaints can be filed under 4.105 a. alleging many different violations of improper activities but under 4.105 d, not all of them are investigated pursuant to procedures in c3699-13. so the whole thing in my opinion is moot. . i believe that miss herrick, may have also have wrongly claimed that the california evidence code 1040, and its definition of official information, may have been misquoted and she may have incorrectly relied on deputy city attorney improper letter to the sunshine ordinance task force in which he wrongly combined two or three of dr. derek kurr's complaints under one ball of wax wrongly. he made a mistake when he did that. in section 1040 is not whether disclosure is permitted, it is whether disclosure is forbidden. jerry made that lettering error. how a deputy city attorney can confound forbidden can permitted and then, deputy city attorney herrick fell into the same mix is really disturbing. >> let me ask you about that mr. hau. because c3-699-13, appears to use the term to the extent permitted
-699-13, appears to use the term to the extent permitted by state law. >> i draw your attention, commissioner hur to section 1040 b. i'm assuming that state law takes precedence over 699-13. i would assume, sir, that you would know that 1040 should take precedence over the city charters or this particular government conduct code which is not even at the city charter level, if i am right. >> 1040 b, clearly states, a public entity is a privilege to refuse to disclose official information... unless disclosure is forbidden. there is nothing >> in the act of the u.s. congress or any other statue that forbids the disclosure of the information that i am seeking. >> except that there is another paragraph, mr. shaw. i mean the basis for miss herrick's analysis is 1040 b2. she is not claiming that there is an act of congress that forbids this. she is claiming that the necessity for perceiving confidentiality out weighs disclosure. >> commissioner hur, let me respond to that question and that is, sunshine ordinance, if you have ever read it specifically bars every agency in san francisco from exerting the
that there is going to be some perception. the law does provide, though, that even some perception of bias is permissible in a situation like this where you have no legal conflict and we really don't have other options that would allow us to have somebody else adjudicate it. >> may i complaint on that point? >> you will have that opportunity, mr., shaw. so, i am not sure that we have a choice. it doesn't sound like we have a choice. and i, i don't think that an advisory opinion will be particularly helpful if we have to readjudicate it. >> i agree. >> i am not sure that this is, where they have to make determinations related to the executive directors that they hire and work with and conduct business together, that they investigate harassment complaints, whistle blower complaints they seek outside of the council to do that if they are well-organized. but they handle those because it is their job to do so. and i... so i raised it because we do want to be careful and thorough. but i think at this point it might make sense to proceed with the hearing from the attorney and mr. shaw and public
in the sunshine ordinance and the incorporation of the state law with some exceptions. i'm looking very carefully at the summary of the complaints in the two memos from miss herrick and it seems to me that the extent to which there is an investigatory file at the city controllers office or that the commission has conducted an investigation, that those investigations are probably not subject to disclosure. but, the scope of the underlying request between the two offices related to the complaint seems to me to suggest a body of material that is beyond the investigatorry file itself and may include correspondence about the handling of the aspect and not the file itself and to the extent that any such records might exist, they to me, to my read might be subject to disclosure, albeit in a redacted form. i don't know if they exist, but that is my view on that with regard to any closing memo, if there was i don't know what the language of a closing memo offered by the commission staff regarding this complaint refers to. again, if such a thing exists if it is not otherwise made confidential, and i need t
a quick summary of the laws. the ada, calif. building code, the civil rights, and our experts here will elaborate. we also have a list of certified caps at work in san francisco for you. carla johnson with the mayor's office of disability has created a really good it died of out to interview your experts to make sure you are getting the best quality product for you. been next -- the money you pay for the inspection you can take as a tax deduction. any money that if you have taken can be applied as a tax deduction. this can be done on an annual basis. next, the opportunity, and a fund -- opportunity loan fund, providing for small businesses to pay for the inspection or to make improvements needed. to do it before you receive the lawsuit. and lastly, we of the bar association and their resources. they're providing their legal service for you. this last thing i am going to share with you in terms of what we have seen in our office is that with the individuals, that does not necessarily mean an individual will follow up with a lawsuit. what we've seen in our office is the individual's
the uc davis school of law in 2004, following a clerkship with judge cal braise of the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. interest include election law, administrative law, statutory interpretation, constitutional law and property and natural resources law. he is a resident of san francisco's mission district. we are honored to work chris almendorf. [ applause ] >> thank you very much and thank you to all of the candidates who are here today. we're very fortunate to be joined by six candidates and what i hope will soon be seven. all of the candidates have agreed to ask their supporters to be respectful of other candidates and the audience and to maintain quiet during the forum. i ask you to respect that commitment. every aspect of this forum will be equally fair to all participating candidates. as everyone here knows candidate debates are often limited to latitudinal appears and personal attack. our debate focuses on critical areas of policy disagreement among the leading candidates. so this end the league of women voters of san francisco and the san francisco pu
at this time. you said mitch katz convinced you laura's law was wrong. laura's law works. nevada shows, city of new york with kendra's law shows that kendra's law can and will save lives. it gives the police a tool so that people can be treated instead of jailed. and your mental health court in san francisco proves it. i think that all of you would do well to attend the graduation ceremonies and see the people who have been treated and rehabilitated. dr. peter [speaker not understood] described mental illness, it is a physically-based illness, a disability of the brain and the person. unless the person is defeated -- unless that person is treated, they will be defeated, for their brain cannot work. and you can pass all the laws saying, don't pan handle, but if people have a mental disability where they can't comprehend the law -- and i watch it on my own street. the people -- the mentally ill people on our street are my friends. i talk to them. i try to convince them to take their medicine. one guy wanted to fight with me. i said, i'm not going to fight with you. one of us is going to hurt.
of an enabler this body has been, it enables city bodies and personnel to evade their daoulties under the law and to hide that from public scrutiny. the whistle blower laws are not be used to protect the whistle blower but to protect the target. they are being used to hide the true facts of the investigation and to allow the city agency and employees to evade their actions. they hide the extent and the validity of the investigative process used by the ethics staff and the public records law are always intended to disclose rather than conceal public matters. instead these laws are purposefully misinterpreted to protect the agencies in question but also the ethics staff. as far as you not having a conflict of interest, let's look at the arts commission when they got the report from the civil grand jury that listed what they had done, including spending $300,000 on things that they had no legal authority to do so. charging fees, that they had no legal authority and fire the cultural director and replace the head of the commission. the bottom line is if you were a commission and you were in charg
by the courts of appeals does not apply here is that it's basic rule of law when a legislative body, whether this body or the electorate, makes a law, they are presumed to be aware of the previous law that relates to the same topic and if that they change that law, that they are doing so for a purpose, that has a change in the legal effect. here the law was changed. and it would be to assume that the electorate had no intention whatsoever to make that change and to assume that the interpretation of the previous section still applies. so it would be violating both that commonsense and that very time-honored rule of law. my letter that i'm delivering also deals with some ceqa issues. because of the small size of this park, even very small changes can be significant. here the changes are significant and require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report under ceqa before the board approves the proposal that is before you today. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anybody else who would like to speak, please line up because we're going to close public com
and determine whether any documents in it are must be disclosed under state law. and that is what the ethics commission does. so i think and i hope that answers part of your question. the second part and maybe this responds, is when the ethics commission investigates allegations of sunshine allegations involving other departments, they may, depending on the discorrection of the investigate or to review the documents that were not disclosed in order to determine what to do and how to proceed in their investigation. i think in this case, miss herrick could seek to review the files of the ethics commission to determine whether those files are documents that must be disclose under state law. i can speak for the whistle blower program. >> miss herrick, did you review the documents in the possession that were maintained by the ethics commission related to this matter? >> i did not. and just in response to your... all of your questions, we did talk a bit about, apen disd3, 699-1 3a of the city charter which does make the city records confidential. and consistent with any advice that we would get fr
identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as supervisors, what if anything would you propose to strength the city's ethics laws. i will start with mr. davis. >> strong ethic laws are essential. what is happening with our sunshine task force and hope davis can speak to this since she recently served on the task force. these need to be strengthened and one problem we have is around enforcement. i would like to see more of the ethical violations of larger committees, some of which are operating, for instance, in some shady areas of law. one was the run he ed run, the committee for mayor ed lee last year and the campaigns that aren't swaying the politics of city, the way the run ed run campaign did. so i think that is one the issues and improving our good government and ethic laws in san francisco. >> miss breed, would you like to address the question? do you want me to repeat it? >> yes. >> sure. a recent chief civil grand jury report, at the request of supervisor campos the city conducted a comparison of laws identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as su
affect future laws and could overturn as many as 170 laws on the books. so this would be endlessly litigated and gives union bosses more authority than the legislature. >> so, what kind of laws would be -- that have been passed that most people in michigan would say, we have come to live with them, the were settled democratically, people agreed, the legislature passed them, the for signed them. we had elections afterwards. what laws would be overturned? >> there are two laws in particular that they're concerned about. one is the so-called 80-20 law which says that taxpayers don't need to pay more than 80% of public employees pension benefits. and the other one is a law basically regarding teachers. the fact that there have been some school reforms that have allowed various merit measures and teacher promotion measures that could also be overturned by this. this is something that michelle rei, the former dc schools chancellor who runs a students first group, is very concerned about and her group made a big ad in michigan to fight this. >> governor rick snyder, the republican in mich
donkey, or lack thereof. i love the picture. it reminded me of a priceless letter he sent to me in law school when he was over there in the peace corps. chris wrote wonderful notes and told me when he went running in the village where he was staying, only to have locals come up beside him and say where is it, where did it go. where is what? your donkey. i don't have a donkey. >> why are you running? [ laughter] >> for exercise. >> exercise? are you nuts? if you want exercise, come work on my orchard, you crazy american. >> chris succeeded because he knew how to laugh at himself and relate to people around him. there are two more memories i want to share. one deals with government and jazz. chris always wanted to work for the state department. he always wanted to be involved in the foreign service. he took the foreign service exam when we were undergrads at cal. he came back the first time, pleased with results on the written but felt he didn't do so well on the orals. the question that seemed to trip him up and left him perplexed was the following. mr. stevens, please compare american
for their brain cannot work. and you can pass all the laws saying, don't pan handle, but if people have a mental disability where they can't comprehend the law -- and i watch it on my own street. the people -- the mentally ill people on our street are my friends. i talk to them. i try to convince them to take their medicine. one guy wanted to fight with me. i said, i'm not going to fight with you. one of us is going to hurt. they sleep at the foot bridge down at the school nearby. and i saw the custodian trying to lead somebody out, and i explained to him that this person is mentally ill, what was wrong with him, what could be done to save them. now, mitch katz went down to work on mental health ward to keep his medical license. if you talk to a psych emergency services doctor they'd tell you he didn't know what he was doing. they'll tell you further he forced out dr. bob oken as the chief psychiatrist in san francisco. bob oken is one of the greatest psychiatrists in the world. he's a pillar of doctors without borders. he's treated people around the world. he was the director of m
of the indianapolis star, piloting the senate race there. they said results are flawed. they indicate laws wants a toss up is now a double digit lead for his opponent. most significantly, women voters are driving the divide, according to the new poll. joe donnelly with 47% support. richard murdock support. and the libertarian getting about 6% of that support. silver like indiana. paul on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: your reactions on what is going on in your state? caller: our country was built on a religious freedom and also, in our old west -- and in the history of becoming a free country, a lot of our beliefs were made of on the bible. they say life begins at conception. and have been hearing democrats talk about rich people. but you know, i think there are just as many or more rich people and the democrat sector of politics than there are republicans. because republicans did very heavily to charity. host: tell me who you are voting for in the senate race? caller: i will vote for the republicans. host: richard murdock was to mark the bank yes sir. i beli
law institute test because he could not control his behavior, congress in most state jurisdictions changed the law, got rid of the lack of emotional test, the a.l.i. test and now in most jurisdictions, the nontest requires that you demonstrate that you can't distinguish right from wrong. so now we have, and again, the law uses science for the law's own purposes, but what is problematic here is the disconnect. from the criminal side, if you lack emotional control, you go to prison because you can't win under the test because the test doesn't apply. when you walk out of prison and you lack emotional control, you get civilly committed. so what we have is a fundamental disconnect between how we view philosophy of free will and human control on the criminal side versus the civil side and not surprisingly on both sides "the state wins" because on the criminal side you go to prison and on the civil side, you get incarcerated civilly. >> i don't think that's much of a disconnect. i think -- so i agree with you the test has changed. that's not what i'm talking about. if you look at the kind
that not following the law as written, is wrong. and quit advising them to do it. this also referred to the district attorney office as well as this. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is dr. derek kerr. and i have comment that relates to the executive director's report and your annual report to the board. as you know, protection of whistle blowers is one of your mandates, it is in article four of the campaign and government conduct code. but your work in this area is invisible. there is nothing about whistle blower retaliation in your minutes for the last seven years, or your director's reports, or your annual reports. recently the controller's whistle blower program has been reporting retaliation complaints. 17, this year, none substantiate. since 1995 none have been by this body. each year you are required to provide a report to the board of supervisors. one requirement is that you note the number of complaints that you have received. another requirement is to report, the type of conduct complained about, unquote. and so please consider adding whistle blower retaliation to the categories of
public records laws and then continuing the hearing for a determination on the remaining documents, the correspondence between the two departments is that right? >> i guess that is right. yeah. >> sir, sir, public comment is closed. mr. shaw i will give you a minute, and i am not sure what you have. >> i just want to note, mr. gibner indicated that miss herrick was stepping into the shoes of the executive director, right? >> can you get to your point, please? >> you are going to let the acting in the shoes executive director, determine herself the contents of those files? why can't you carve out the time and you examine them? so that it is not a member of the staff filling in for something the ethics commission apparently doesn't want to do itself? >> you would rather have us review the documents? is that your position? >> absolutely. >> you could use a hearing officer. >> sir, not i am going to hear from you. >> i am not going to hear from you, please, shut down. >> i want to object to one thing only. >> if i let you speak everybody has to speak. and we are not going to go forward
a proposed law that would reduce felony drug possession crimes to a misdemeanor. this is what 13 states have done. we not only bring these issues to the forefront, but have the opportunity to participate -- and we have cards that you could fill out and questions. this promises to be a year of reform and change like we have never seen, and we now see prisoner reentry programs being implemented. we're still spending too much money and resources and not enough on rehabilitation and reentry. this november, the voters will decide on limiting the three strikes law. issues and measures long overdue. it is clear there is much more that needs to be done. according to a study that was published this month -- since 1989, 2000 people have been wrongfully incarcerated and they served collectively, 10,000 years. an average of 11 years person. i would like to thank the people who made this summit possible. memoranda -- amy devon -- many volunteers and all of our speakers and panelists. i would like to thank the co- sponsors, and the bar association of san francisco. i would like to thank them for their hel
>>> my name is mary numyer. i live in washington but met chris 26 years ago at hastings law school, two blocks from here. we were in the same section in the same study group. when we finished law school we both went to the east coast to work for large law firms. over the years we stayed in close touch. when chris was back from over seas we were frequent tennis partners and would get together for dinners and other events in washington. over the years our families became friends as well. it's been such a pleasure to come to know them and chris's many friends in washington and to watch his career unfold. we met on the first day of school. i sat down in our civil procedure class next to a person who turned out to be named chris highland. shortly thereafter chris stevens sat down next to me. the three of us went to lunch afterwards and became friends from that day forward. chris never tried to be someone special but he was someone special. when we were at hastings his charm and wit were on display from the start. in class he was very articulate and seemed as later in life always very po
on together but he proactively came for this bill, s.b. 1506, to say that he's been law enforcement for 30 years and bring back 30-year experience to this consideration of this bill, and he said this bill makes sense because drug treatment works and this is in spite of the fact we'll be battling the district attorneys along with many other arms of public safety. [laughter] >> we've got the data, we've got the facts and we know this will provide great benefit to our communities, to our neighborhoods, and to all of california. thank you for your support. [applause] >> tal, i want to go back to the question that marty posed earlier, which is in effect this idea that in order to incentivize people making the decision to seek treatment that the fear of a felony conviction or possible state prison sentence could play a positive role. you talk to a lot of people charged with crimes who are trying to make the decision of what decision to make, what is the primary motivation you see coming from them. how do they decision make on dispositions related to drug possession as a felony? >> i think that f
working on an administrative issue through law school and was very interested in how admissions worked and how students did after they graduated and it didn't take long to sort of look at what was happening, to sense something like "mismatch" might be important. we were admitting large preferences, and 90% chance of graduating only a 50% chance of passing the bar. welcome. that meant only 45% of students we were admitting actually went on to smoothly go through law school and get their law degrees. wasn't hard to look at other schools in los angeles where students wouldn't have gotten in without references to see that those students had better outcomes. us started looking into this and look for a relevant database to test this and in 2004-2005 developed the paper that first discusses the issue in law school context and found this is quite a large problem, nationally the great bulk of minority students especially african-american students were receiving large preferences on a scale of a couple hundred spt points. traits were generally poor for this group. only a third of black starting
that the law would recognize. so the law all of the time develops concepts that scientists are interested in studying. it might be competency, for example. well, competency is really a multifaceted construct from a legal perspective. it could be competency to be executed, it could be competency to commit a crime. it could be competency to contribute to the decision as to whether voluntarily commit yourself to a mental hospital. it could be competency to participate in an abortion decision. so competency means many different things. the first thing you have to do as a scientist is ask the question, well, what does the law mean by it because if you want me to measure it, i have to somehow apply it. so going back to the question of free will, because a scientist can't operationally define it, they can't measure it, they're not really that much use to legal debates about free will. now, what does it mean on the legal side? i actually think the idea of free will or what is often referred to as volitional control plays a very big part in legal systems, but i think in the legal systems, we don't
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,468 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)